Last Updated on October 28, 2021 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RADU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 50868/16 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 October 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Radu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private 7 October 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. In all applications, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the applicants’ loss of victim status for the periods of detention specified in the appended table because they were afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those specific periods of detention.
8. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was held to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23-33, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for details see the appended table).
9. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
10. Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention as specified in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 ‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
11. In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention, as specified in the appended table below, were inadequate.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In application no. 50868/16, the applicant also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to periods of detention preceding the start date specified in the appended table.
15. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as they were lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
16. It follows that these parts of application no. 50868/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
19. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as specified in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention for the periods indicated in the appended table below;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 October 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
______________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Facility
Start and end date Duration |
Sq. m per inmate | Specific grievances | Domestic compensation awarded
(in days) based on total period calculated domestically |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 50868/16
19/09/2016 |
Ivanciu RADU
1978 |
|
Gherla Prison
01/09/2016 to 15/09/2016 15 day(s) |
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, constant electric light | 504 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 23/12/2019, with exception of the period mentioned in Column no. 5. | 1,000 | |
| 2. | 10817/17
13/01/2017 |
Laurențiu-Victor POPA
1989 |
Cândea Claudia Nadina Daciana
Timişoara |
Arad Prison
10/07/2014 to 16/01/2015 6 month(s) and 7 day(s) Arad Prison 20/08/2015 to 01/09/2016 1 year(s) and 13 day(s) |
|
constant electric light, deterioration in conditions of detention (cumulative effect of lack of physical exercise, breaches of the hygiene regulations, lack of contact with the outside world and uncertainty), inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food | 258 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 23/01/2013 to 28/02/2018, with exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5. | 3,000 |
| 3. | 13244/17
06/03/2017 |
Dorel POPESCU
1979 |
|
Giurgiu Prison
27/07/2016 to 10/01/2017 5 month(s) and 15 day(s) Jilava and Rahova Prisons 24/12/2019 pending More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s) |
2.85 m²
|
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food | 354 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 04/11/2014 to 23/12/2019, with exception of the period mentioned in Column no. 5. | 3,000 |
| 4. | 14363/17
14/02/2017 |
Valentin PRICOP
1961 |
Biro Vasile Rareş
Satu Mare |
Arad Prison
07/10/2016 to 14/11/2016 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food | 126 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/10/2016 to 21/08/2018, with exception of the period mentioned in Column no. 5. | 1,000 | |
| 5. | 17301/17
21/02/2017 |
Ioan MEZIN
1969 |
Nichita-Costescu Cezara-Maria
Timisoara |
Arad Prison
15/04/2013 to 25/02/2016 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s) |
3.48 m2 | overcrowding (for the period 24/02/2015-20/04/2015), constant electric light, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food | 252 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 16/08/2012 to 11/12/2018, with exception of the period mentioned in Column no. 5. | 3,000 |
| 6. | 18066/17
01/03/2017 |
Teodor CRIȘAN
1988 |
Biro Vasile Rareş
Satu Mare |
Sălaj County Police Station
06/12/2014 to 23/12/2014 18 day(s) Arad Prison 23/07/2015 to 11/12/2015 4 month(s) and 19 day(s) Arad Prison 14/03/2016 to 01/04/2016 19 day(s) Arad Prison 07/07/2016 to 05/01/2017 5 month(s) and 30 day(s) |
1.5-2.33 m²
|
overcrowding, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, | 198 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 05/11/2014 to 14/08/2018, with exception of the periods mentioned in Column no. 5. | 1,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply